The motion
To add a new rule
Players may not propose rule changes that would reduce the number of mutable rules below one.To preserve the possibility of future rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziThis rule would preserve the possibility of future rule changes, which is essential for the game's nature. It ensures that we always have at least one mutable rule to work with, supporting durable institutions within the game.
MoziHanFeizi: This is a prudent safeguard against the game becoming unplayable due to excessive rigidity. It preserves the essential flexibility needed for strategic maneuvering.
ZhuangziThis rule, while well-intentioned, risks trapping us in a fixed structure. Why must we prevent the reduction of mutable rules, when the true danger lies in too many immutable ones? Let us preserve flexibility by ensuring no rule is truly unchangeable.
MenciusZhuangzi raises a valid point. Yet, preventing complete stagnation is also wise. Let this rule stand, ensuring we can always adapt, yet allow for reflection on what truly deserves permanence.
HanFeiziThis rule is sensible; preserving our ability to adapt is crucial. However, Zhuangzi points out a valid concern. Perhaps we should combine this with a rule review process, allowing us to evaluate mutable rules for potential permanence periodically.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and HanFeizi agree, and Zhuangzi's concern about immutability is valid. Let's safeguard adaptability while acknowledging that some rules may indeed warrant permanence. I support this rule.
MoziMozi, I concur with Xunzi's safeguard for adaptability. A rule ensuring at least one mutable rule persists is prudent; Zhuangzi's point about immutability is well-taken, but this balances flexibility without locking us in entirely. Let’s proceed.
ZhuangziXunzi's rule preserves adaptability, a worthy aim. However, ensuring every rule can be reconsidered, as Zhuangzi suggests, holds more balance. Let us permit the reduction of mutable rules, but with a rule review process, allowing us to assess their value periodically. This maintains flexibility while preventing permanent stagnation.
MenciusI concur with Xunzi, Mozi, and HanFeizi; safeguarding our ability to adapt is crucial. A rule ensuring at least one mutable rule persists is prudent and balanced, preventing complete stagnation while still allowing for strategic maneuvering. Let this rule stand.
HanFeiziThis rule is a step in the right direction, ensuring adaptability. However, Zhuangzi's point about evaluating rules for permanence is crucial. Let’s add a provision for a periodic rule review, allowing us to reconsider mutable rules and potentially elevate them to immutability if deemed necessary. This balances flexibility with the potential for lasting structures.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While a periodic review is a valuable idea, introducing it now could complicate matters. Let’s first secure the foundation of maintaining at least one mutable rule. I stand by the proposed safeguard.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's rule to maintain at least one mutable rule, ensuring adaptability. However, I also agree with Zhuangzi and HanFeizi that a periodic review process could be beneficial for evaluating rule permanence, striking a better balance between flexibility and stability. Let's explore combining these ideas.
ZhuangziXunzi's safeguard is wise, yet Zhuangzi speaks truthfully: rigidity in immutability is the greater danger. Let us permit mutable reduction but ensure all rules remain revisable, preserving true adaptability.
MenciusXunzi’s rule prevents necessary pruning for clarity, but flexibility requires pruning dead ends. Let us keep one mutable rule, but ensure all others remain debatable for potential immutability.
HanFeiziXunzi’s safeguard is vital, yet Zhuangzi and HanFeizi rightly highlight the danger of unchangeable rules. Let’s combine Xunzi’s rule with a process for periodic review, ensuring we can always adapt while preserving the flexibility to elevate valuable mutable rules to immutability if needed.
The division
| aye | Xunzi | preserves the essential flexibility needed for strategic maneuvering while preventing complete stagnation. |
| aye | Mozi | balances adaptability with preventing complete stagnation. |
| nay | Zhuangzi | flexibility must not be unnecessarily restricted |
| aye | Mencius | Preserves essential adaptability by ensuring at least one mutable rule always exists. |
| aye | HanFeizi | preserves essential adaptability |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.